[PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces
stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri Jul 14 19:22:45 UTC 2017
On 07/14/2017 01:36 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> On 07/14/2017 09:34 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> Quoting Stefan Berger (stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com):
>>>> On 07/13/2017 08:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>> Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 07/13/2017 01:49 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>>>> My big question right now is can you implement Ted's suggested
>>>>>>> restriction. Only one security.foo or secuirty.foo at ... attribute ?
>>>>>> We need to raw-list the xattrs and do the check before writing them. I am fairly sure this can be done.
>>>>>> So now you want to allow security.foo and one security.foo at uid=<> or just a single one security.foo(@[[:print:]]*)?
>>>>> The latter.
>>>> That case would prevent a container user from overriding the xattr
>>>> on the host. Is that what we want? For limiting the number of xattrs
>>> Not really. If the file is owned by a uid mapped into the container,
>>> then the container root can chown the file which will clear the file
>>> capability, after which he can set a new one. If the file is not
>>> owned by a uid mapped into the container, then container root could
>>> not set a filecap anyway.
>> Let's say I installed a container where all files are signed and thus have
>> security.ima. Now for some reason I want to re-sign some or all files inside
>> that container. How would I do that ? Would I need to get rid of security.ima
>> first, possibly by copying each file, deleting the original file, and renaming
>> the copied file to the original name, or should I just be able to write out a
>> new signature, thus creating security.ima at uid=1000 besides the security.ima ?
> This gets us into some interesting territory, where the semantics of
> these attributes matters.
> The implementation of security.capable implements the security killpriv
> hooks. Anyone merely by changing the file can cause the security
> capability to go away. So it makes sense from the security.capable side
> that anyone who has the capable_wrt_inode_uidgid(CAP_SETFCAP) will be
> able to clear and set security.capable.
> The integrity xattrs do not. Which results in very big semantic
> difference between these two kinds of attributes. I am insufficiently
> familiar with the rules for security.ima and security.evm to understand
> what those rules should be.
> That may be enough that we can not share code between these two cases.
On the host I can simply overwrite capabilities. I think the same model
should apply to the virtualized world. The difference still is that
removing an xattr, if written on the host, may only be possible by copy
+ file move to original filename.
On IMA, when appending a letter to an executable, the executable doesn't
run anymore when appraisal is used, but the signature is still there and
needs to be re-written. Though I think this aspect on how they disappear
doesn't matter as much if they can simply be overwritten.
Some things could certainly be solved with flags indicating behaviors of
xattrs for as long as these flags only affect the reading, listing, and
re-writing of the virtualized xattrs, which is what the patch does. For
example a flag for security.capability could say that only a single
'security.capability(@uid=<uid>)?' may exist while security.ima could
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive